Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Jan Harkes]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:56:37AM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> "User expectations" aside for the moment:  I think the default action
> for this mailing list ought to be "reply to list, but not to original
> sender."  Discussion should be on-list by default.  Agree?
> 
> With the current setup, if I do "reply" I get the original sender's
> email.  Not what I want.
> 
> If I do "reply all" I get the list AND the original sender's email. 
> That's not what I want, either.

And if I do "list reply" the response goes only to the list, just as I
like it. Group reply is really only useful when someone is sending a
message to a lot of CC'd addresses. And in most of those cases, many
of the people on the CC list really aren't interested at all in your
answer and it is far more effective to send a reply only to the
original sender.

Now you seem to be using Evolution, so I googled to see why they don't
support Mail-Followup-To type headers and found this email.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2001/debian-powerpc-200108/msg00671.html

ROTFL indeed.

> I have to do "reply all" and then go and cut out the sender's email. 
> That's frustrating and annoying.
> 
> On top of all that, I just screwed up several times in a row this
> morning because I'm accustomed to the other behavior - which is, in
> fact, what I want.

Let's assume I intentionally wanted to respond to you in private with
this email, f.i. when I try to ask a stupid question and do not want
to look like a complete fool on the mailing list.

At the moment I can just hit reply-to and everything works fine.
However if the reply-to is munged and I hit reply, my 'stupid' email
might accidentally go out to a list of hundreds of people. And even
when I notice the mistake correcting it is not as easy. I have to open
another mail client, search down to the email I'm responding to, cut
and paste the (hopefully) right address which might not even work
because the original Reply-To was eaten by the munging.

Compare this all to real scenario of potential embarrasment and
significantly more work to get the right address to the trouble of
having to remove a single name from the CC line when reply-to is not
munged.

Jan